Hayes v. State of Washington, Department of Corrections et al

Filing 12

ORDER that Plaintiff's 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Donald Hayes, Prisoner ID: 766385)(CMG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

DONALD C HAYES,

11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05095-BHS-DWC
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
DAN PACHOLKE, JANE DOES,
JOHN DOES, ELIZABETH SUITER,
JEFFERY UTTECHT, SARA SMITH,
DAVIS, REYES, EDWARDS,

16
Defendants.
17
18
The District Court has referred this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to United States Magistrate
19
Judge David W. Christel. Currently pending in this action is Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of
20
Motion to Appoint Counsel (“Motion”). Dkt. 11. No constitutional right to appointed counsel
21
exists in a § 1983 action. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see United
22
States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[a]ppointment of
23
counsel under this section is discretionary, not mandatory”). However, in “exceptional
24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL - 1

1 circumstances,” a district court may appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants pursuant to 28
2 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (formerly 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Rand v. Roland, 113F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th
3 Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). To decide whether
4 exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both “the likelihood of success on the
5 merits [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity
6 of the legal issues involved.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)
7 (quoting Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983)). A plaintiff must plead facts
8 showing he has an insufficient grasp of his case or the legal issues involved and an inadequate
9 ability to articulate the factual basis of his claims. Agyeman v. Corrections Corp. of America,
10 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004).
11

In Plaintiff’s Motion, he states he is unable to afford counsel and his incarceration limits

12 his ability to litigate this action. Dkt. 11. Plaintiff has not shown, nor does the Court find, this
13 case involves complex facts or law. Plaintiff has also not shown an inability to articulate the
14 factual basis of his claims in a fashion understandable to the Court or shown he is likely to
15 succeed on the merits of his case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied without prejudice.
16

Dated this 23rd day of March, 2016.

A

17
18

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL - 2